There is already a topic about the author Michael Langford, who coined this term 'awareness watching awareness', but I would like to hear your opinion on his interpretation of Self-Attention.

Michael Langford describes the way he came to this conclusion like this.

"... (I wondered) If “I AM” is this present awareness, just the awareness that is now looking at this room, then paying attention to the I AM is just: My awareness watching my awareness.

Atleast in my opinion this sounds true and is logical. And this is how he describes the practice itself: "Turn your attention away from thought and watch the watcher, see the seer."

When he first found this out, he asked Sri V. Ganesan (grand nephew of Sri Ramana) about this practice and he approved it saying that he calls it 'attention attending to attention'. Michael Langford also backs this interpretation by giving quotes from "The garland of Guru's sayings", by Sri Muruganar:

The only true and full awareness is awareness of awareness.Till awareness is awareness of itself, it knows no peace at all.”

“Is it not because you are yourself Awareness, that you now perceive This universe?If you observe awareness steadily, this awareness itself as Guru will reveal the Truth.”

" If with mind turned towards Awareness and concentrating on Awareness, one seeks the Self, the world made up of ether and other elements is real, as all things are Awareness, the one sole substance of true Being."

" If instead of looking outward at objects, you observe that looking, all things now shine as I, the seer. Perception of objects is mere illusion."

"The ego image moves reflected in the mind's waves. How to stop this movement, how to regain the state of stillness? Don't observe these movements, seek the Self, instead. It is wisdom to gain and abide in silence."

Also Michael James says that Michael Langford's intepretation is correct.

Is 'Awareness Watching Awareness'-method same as Sri Bhagavan's Self-Attention?

Yes, that is what Sri Bhagavan clearly says.

"What is essential in any sadhana [practice] is to try to bring back the running mind and fix it on one thing only. Why then should it not be brought back and fixed in Self-attention? That alone is Self-enquiry (atma-vicara). That is all that is to be done!"

Now what is the Self that we are to fix our attention to? Bhagavan answers: "You ( the Self ) are Awareness. Awareness is another name for you." So this practice could as well be called 'Awareness-Attention'.

In Nan Yar Bhagavan also calls this practice by the name 'ahamukham' which means I-facing (and therefore could also be called 'Awareness-facing').

I don't know if anyone cares, but one of my favourite teachers Shinzen Young says that he practiced mindfulness of breathing in the beginning of his path. And after some months of practice he asked for more advanced method from his (zen) teacher. His teacher replied: "A more advanced method? Some people have practiced mindfulness of breathing for twenty years and are still learning new things every day. But you asked for a more advanced method, so here you have it: "Find out who you really are".Shinzen then asked 'how?', to which his teacher replied: "Just do it." And when Shinzen asked for some tip, his teacher said: "Turn the light (of consciousness) on itself."

That which can be objectified can be watched - awareness watches the object.

How can Awareness/Self be watched? Who is watching? It just IS.

These explanations are at the root of all errors .... 'are there two, one to watch the other'.

Self-enquiry is NOT this method. Self-enquiry is holding onto and remaining as Self/Awareness of Being. A subtle but profound difference.

Whatever can be objectified is not Self, it is just another thought, another figment of the imagination.

So do you disagree with these quotes? Aren't they from Sri Ramana himself?

Quote

418. The only true and full Awareness is Awareness of Awareness. Until Awareness is Awareness of itself, it knows no peace at all.

52. If mind turned towards Awareness and concentrating on Awareness, seeks the Self, the world made up of ether and other elements is real, as all things are Awareness, the one sole substance of true Being.

Logged

amiatall

It is all the same. Why so many different titles ? Because of different attitudes towards specific words.In particular I don't see any difference between Seek the seeker, who am I?, self-attention, awareness-watching-awareness, they all imply one thing - who is that that watches?, who is this I that perceives? etc. until full light (100%) of attention is given to this matter, It cannot unfold.

Self enquiry is simply the attention to the Self. For ever, permanently. Awareness is the state of Being. I do not understandhow Awareness can be watched, objectified. Michael Longford is not correct in his saying.

"First the Self Sees itself as Object, then the Self sees itself as Void, and finally, the Self sees itself as Self, only in the last, there is no seeing, as seeing is being"

Its all stages, each person moves ahead in his/her own way.

When Faith is sincere, there is only one way ahead, going upwards the mountain peak, any direction upwards takes you to only the peak of the mountain and no other destination. It may only appear that each person is taking a different route to different destination, but a person with complete faith in his Guru can only Go Upwards to the Source - peak - Self.

Self enquiry is simply the attention to the Self. For ever, permanently. Awareness is the state of Being. I do not understand how Awareness can be watched, objectified. Michael Longford is not correct in his saying.

Arunachala Siva.

Sri Nisargadatta said: "Be aware of being aware". I believe that this is what Michael Langford is saying also.

"Being aware" is not "watching awareness". How can it be?I am aware I am tall or short. Am I watching my shortnessor tall height, every moment?

I am aware I am having high fever. Am I watching my feverishness?I can at best watch into the thermometer after placing it under mytongue once in two hours. Otherwise I am not watching my feverishness. My wife may watch it, by placing her hand on myforehead. That is all. Watching needs a thermometer or a second person.

It something like, even Bhagavan has said in some context (just a vague reflection), do we ever need to see that we are man/woman, etc...

does anyone ever have to watch himself to affirm that he/she is man or woman,

we know intrinsically that we are man/woman, we do not need to watch ourselves to know that I am man,

I know I am man... I know I am a woman. similarly, can awareness ever watch itself? it is impossible

to watch something implies subject and object. awareness being itself the subject and object, there is a great difference here, awareness cannot watch itself for it itself is awareness. if at all there is any watching, then be assured that those are your own making, ideas, notions, imaginations, etc... about awareness.

amiatall

a play of words, nothing more.essentially it is the same.'Watch the watcher', 'see the seer' it does not imply that it is so, but it implies "please try to watch if you can...", by watching separation melts isn't it? because there is no you to be watched. there is no another. basicly it removes the ignorance that there is another which parades itself as some kind of entity.the confusion arises because one thinks that "watching" here means 'with eyes', but watching or seeing in this context means only 'being' that is all.

These are all plastic flowers pretending to be living flowers. These are all indirect paths with an almost endless number of delays in them. They are all distortions of the original intentions. Because the Lucknow lineage is modern, it provides an excellent opportunity to see how a Sages teaching is distorted. The Sage being Sri Ramana Maharshi and the ones distorting the teaching being the Lucknow lineage. The same is true for the Ramesh Balsekar lineage. The Sage being Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj and the ones doing the distorting being the Ramesh Balsekar lineage."